Monday, September 18, 2017

Sanctuary city mayors openly advocating "aiding and abetting" law breakers.

A state going as far as to vote to declare itself as a "sanctuary state."

The question becomes, "when will the country say, "enough is enough?"

Donald Trump rode into the White House on a wave of indignation, mixed with outright anxiety. To those who supported him, he represented a clear, strong voice against "the way that things were." He has faced long odds; grappling with everyone from the mainstream media to leaders in his own party.

Imagine for a moment! How would any President fare with a House Speaker and a Senate Majority leader not in sync with his agenda?

It wouldn't be easy! Ask Richard Nixon! The difference however, was that Nixon faced strong Democrat opposition in both the House and Senate. House Speaker, Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell are Republicans. Both have been accused of "slow walking" the President's agenda. It is probable that if the midterm elections were held this fall and both were on the ballot, neither would return next year.

Donald Trump is a "nimble" operator. Some might describe his as "mercurial." Which translates to "if Republicans can't get it done, he'll turn to the opposition party." Is this wise?

We must remember that Trump's constituency isn't exclusively Republican. In the 2016 election, a forgotten segment of America emerged, sweeping him first into the nomination, later into the White House. National Review called them the "disaffecteds." Two-thirds were independents. 23% were not white. The average household income made $30,000. Practically none of them trusted government.

Building a wall, effectively closing the borders was especially favored by these voters. The Republican Establishment wasn't thrilled! Not only did it come off as "anti-Hispanic," but it slowed the flow of cheap labor. Democrats saw those "border jumpers" as future voters.

The former assumption is simply racist! Most of the eleven million illegals in this country aren't Hispanic. Furthermore, Latin surnamed Americans are proving to be exceptional contributors to our "melting pot." Most favor strong immigration control standards.

The second position is easier to fathom. People who come into the country illegally are often poor, seeking to jump on America's entitlement gravy train. Naturally they would gravitate to a party that favors free health care, free housing, free food, free education and all of the associated "chits and boonies" that accompany Democrat leadership.

Donald Trump simply must accomplish two objectives: Tax Reform and the Wall. If he gets both, he will win a second term.

The failure of Obamacare repeal is another topic for a different post. But, it important to note that the inability of Mitch McConnell to secure the 50th vote, opens up all sorts of options for the President. Including, forging a different deal with the Democrats that might include something for both sides.

The real test may come with how the President handles the sanctuary city question. The hint that he might be willing to acquiesce in the D.A.C.A. question has conservatives like Ann Coulter ready to jump ship!

Don't jump yet! Has everyone read "the art of the deal?" I have.

Donald Trump is engaged in what he does best: negotiate. He knows that the Democrats cannot fail on D.A.C.A.. The President senses that "Chuck and Nancy" will happily "pay a pound of flesh," to bring these "Dreamers" into the American family, legally and permanently. This in itself, creates boundless opportunities!

Starting with, "getting bi-partisan support for his tax reform initiative." Notice how the President is touting "Middle Class and small business" as the primary beneficiaries? It's true!

Under the plan, the greatest benefactors in America would be individuals making between $35,000 per year and $350,000 per year, living in low taxed states. The odds of cutting corporate taxes to 15% are long. To cut them to 20% are excellent. The end result of both would be an unprecedented expansion in America.

"Requiring all new Americans to learn the English language." is favored overwhelmingly on both sides of the aisle. Why not make it official; as in an English Language Amendment? Requiring a voter I.D. card with photo would be easy enough to slip in, with stipulation that "only U.S. citizens" would be allowed to vote. Any municipality that proffered legislation to the contrary would be denied federal funding. Congressional representation would be based on "citizens and not persons."

"Aiding and abetting criminals" is supposedly against the law. Nobody is above the law. Even dissenting sanctuary city mayors! To give this assertion "teeth," the President would instruct Attorney General Sessions to issue arrest warrants for these mayors.

The first amendment guarantees free speech in this country. In places like Berkeley, they seemed to have overlooked this American right!

There is also a violent backlash against law enforcement officials in certain cities. Often the instigators are paid by divisive forces determined to create malaise in minority communities.

The President could nip this entire movement in the bud with one brilliant, yet controversial stroke:

"Call for 1,000,000 civilian volunteers to uphold first amendment freedoms while assisting the police maintain order in troubled areas."

"Five times" that many will respond! These five million will not be Sunday soldiers! Expect the majority to be between 18 and 45. They will come with "AR-15's in one hand, 12-gauge pumps in the other hand and nine millimeters tucked in their belts!

As a friend from Alabama phrased. "Ten thousand or so of these folks show up in Berkeley, and the whole business will be over in twenty minutes."

Here is how it would work. American citizens providing their own ordinance would report to their state organizations. They would then be assigned to troubled areas where they would converge to "hermetically seal" them. All ground and air communication would be suspended. Within two weeks, law abiding, America loving residents would happily hand over the criminals to the authorities.

Where there is a problem, there is an opportunity!

For security purposes, if for no other, we need to hunt down agitators who are paying local residents to protest and inflict violence on citizens. GITMO was made for these people! Are you listening, George Soros?

We need a rail line connecting Alaska to the lower 48. It would begin in Anchorage and Fairbanks, join at Tok and turn southeast to Dawson Creek. From there, it's probable that the Canadians would either complete the railroad to the boarder, or allow us to do it. Ideally, this railroad would run the length of Alberta, picking up major cities, Edmonton and Calgary, before entering the U.S. just north of Babb, Montana.

Would "Chuck and Nancy" go for this? And, what about the wall?

The "wall is already being built." Soon it will become secondary in the discussion. At the forefront will be "Chuck and Nancy's" great accomplishment: "Winning Dreamers a path to citizenship." Missing would be the "extended family members of these Dreamers." The deal would specify "no access to entitlements" for ANYONE who was not a citizen or permanent resident alien.

Meanwhile, our President, the master negotiator, would have gotten the following:

*-Tax reform passed
*- The Wall built
*- English officially made the "one and only language for use" in the country
*- Voter I.D.'s with picture required to participate
*- Congressional representation changed to reflect citizens and not persons.
*- Sanctuary cities properly disciplined.
*- Securing a "lifetime labor force" to build a critical rail link from Alaska to the lower 48.

Wouldn't these sanctuary city mayors create "a big time stink?"

They might. But, what is to keep them from landing in a correctional institution for several years? After all, they did break the law... Are we suggesting that they are above the law? They are in a position of leadership. What happened to the axiom, "to more is given, more is expected?"

How about a state that had decided that law originating in Washington did not apply to them? I thought this question had been settled!

No doubt the A.C.L.U. among others, would launch a plethora of law suits. Where these would go is anyone's guess! Had the A.C.L.U. existed during Abraham Lincoln's presidency, the South would have gained her independence! At least under a 2017 mindset. In 1862, Lincoln would have interned those voices, suspending Habeas Corpus in the process!

The Urban Dictionary defines ANTIFA as "middle class champagne socialist/communist/anarchist white boys who don't like nationalists or fascists." Americans past their 80th birthdays and who grew up in Europe will attest to having "seen them before." Their children will openly reminiscence of the ruin and anguish they ultimately brought upon the continent.

This lingering memory alone, courtesy of these children, should result in a call by Democrats for the media to "stand down;" alternatively advancing the notion of "successful bipartisanship at it's zenith."